[MD] Quantum Physics

[Heather Perella]

This is enjoyable, and good practice.  Thank you.

   [Chin]
> I left the bulk of your excellent thoughts
> out, as it might get 
> a little long.  In terms of negation, I would think
> it to be dynamic 
> quality or Quality that negated sq, or in the
> analogy of the train, 
> the sq cars just being dropped off as DQ was picked
> up. 

     true.  This is difficult, around and around
dependent-origination, which is as follows:  sq
happens, so, dq happens and vice versa.  The questions
to this happening is much of what I tried to say in
the lengthy last post.  You plainly came out and just
said it with the train analogue, excellent.  I would
also add that dq is negated by sq.  This is why they
can negate each other, but always still remain.  Dq
and sq does not go away, and if it does then another
duality will always be present.  Yet, the neatness
about this duality is it is not a duality for they are
both quality.  Yet, for quality to realize itself, the
first split and thus, code of art and you know this
story now.  Sq does negate dq, for sq is here. 
Something is here.  Rocks are here.  This scenario
plays out the other way around too, which leads
straight into mu.

     [Chin] 
> BTW, what is mu?  

     Here is a quote from ZMM ch. 26 (this chapter
covers gumption traps):

     "We don't even have a term for it, so I'll have
to use the Japanese mu.  Mu means ``no thing.'' Like
"Quality'' it points outside the process of dualistic
discrimination. Mu simply says, ``No class; not one,
not zero, not yes, not no.'' It states that the
context of the question is such that a yes or no
answer is in error and should not be given. ``Unask
the question'' is what it says.  Mu becomes
appropriate when the context of the question becomes
too small for the truth of the answer. When the Zen
monk Joshu was asked whether a dog had a Buddha nature
he said ``Mu,'' meaning that if he answered either way
he was answering incorrectly. The Buddha nature cannot
be captured by yes or no questions.  That mu exists in
the natural world investigated by science is evident.
It's just that, as usual, we're trained not to see it
by our heritage. For example, it's stated over and
over again that computer circuits exhibit only two
states, a voltage for "one'' and a voltage for
"zero.''  That's silly!  Any computer-electronics
technician knows otherwise. Try to find a voltage
representing one or zero when the power is off! The
circuits are in a mu state."

     This is what I mean by dependent-origination. 
Zen negates negation, and by doing so with Fullness. 
Zen affirms affirmation, and by doing so with
negation.  Dq negates sq, and sq negates dq.  To get
to Mind, not beyond this dependent-origination, or
this gumption trap, but to experience this at it is,
which is negation upon negation, affirmation upon
affirmation - practice this and the experience is
Emptiness (Mu).  This is not empty or nothingness as
in total nothing or emptiness.  It is just not this or
not that, and it is this and that - what the heck does
that mean?  It is not totally logically, something to
be totally static.  MoQ, since we're familiar with
this more, just says it's all quality.  MoQ makes it
easy.  MoQ says all is static and dynamic and they
both are quality.  We even call them static QUALITY
and dynamic QUALITY.  And we're back to 'What is
Quality?', and in answering this question we can
notice lots of static patterns and also lots of
undefined know-how, and so we're still asking 'What is
Quality?'.  Zen is on the same path.  I don't know if
it is cultural or what, but in Zen I totally
understand dependent-origination and the negate negate
and affirm affirm, and all that jazz I was talkin'
above.  Yet, in Zen the word Mu is still used.  Negate
is mu.  Affirm is being.  Yet, in Zen with this
dependent-origination the final event with this
dependent-origination is to say Mu [authors usually
capitalize this Mu to set it apart from the other
negate (mu)].  That makes it difficult in my head.  I
get the jist of it, but all these mu's dancing with
big Mu and little mu, I don't know, in Japan, China,
or Korea, maybe they use different words to make these
distinctions clarified.  MoQ helps me because of the
distinction in static quality and dynamic quality, and
yet, the keeping of quality to underline the
non-duality.  Yet, when we realize what quality is,
code of art, we understand quality is dynamic and
static.


> Chin) My point was that he was pointing to the word
> Art as viewed as 
> inferior, romantic, not classic intellect. 

  I agree.  He did state that, I guess, he was
perceiving the cultural view of art, maybe?

 
   [Chin]
> I think everything is moral, except us, or at
> least us without a 
> connection to our true self.

     This is tricky.  To make a distinction between
true self and those not of true self is clearly to
fall in step with delusion and what you stated above,
"I think everything is moral, except us..."  By saying
except us, you've affirm immorals.  In Zen, our self
is seen as a dilemma.  We are the dilemma.  I, this
human being, am the dilemma.  The whole dependent
origination, back and forth, positive-negative,
life-death, these all are dependent upon each other
for their origin.  In Zen, neither is better than the
other.  Thus, static quality is no better than dynamic
quality.  Dynamic quality is no better than static
quality.  They are quality.  This is quality.  So if
negative and positive are no better than each other. 
Both are the same in force upon each other, then what
of morals.  MoQ explains this well.  Nothing is moral.
 Moral just is.  What of this dilemma I mentioned? 
Well, in Zen, since the dilemma is this human being
(self), then that's where no-self comes in.  Negate
self.  Don't affirm self into the final answer.  True
self in Zen is no-self.  Rid the ego.  Rid the human
judgement in what is to be right and what is to be
wrong.  For us, to put weight into one or the other is
to not understand that as long as right exists, wrong
will too.  What of being moral?  Zen is very moral,
but how can Zen be moral if it just says negate-self,
no-self and true self is such.  Can we actually go
beyond self and not be human?  Of course not, thus the
dilemma.  So, compassion.  Help others.  Empty one
self of ones' self as suffering is this dilemma and
compassion is here as the enlightenment, the
understanding for this suffering.  As for MoQ, and how
we make mistakes, we aren't perfect in our morality. 
MoQ states Nothing is moral.  Thus, what I do is be
quiet.  I stick with this Nothing and all will be as
moral as it gets.  My effort in being moral is a
practice.  The MoQ states to practice the levels and
intellect is to not be controlled by society.  We are
still trying to decide what exactly that means.  Will
we ever have the intellect to know?  I say we do now. 
Do we always use our intellect in being moral?  Hmmm,
this is the current dilemma.  How do we rid this
dilemma?  Well, this answer, might not be what I'm
looking for or what your looking for, but Nothing is
moral.  Death is nothing.  Death is dynamic.  Are we
all to commit suicide?  Heck no, do not degenerate
static patterns.  We thus struggle.  Is this struggle
between dq and sq, is this struggle the effort?  As
long as we are struggling and haven't given up, and we
practice with gumption, is this the suchness as in
such-as-this-is?  Or else, I can cop-out, as I do at
times and be quiet, for I don't know.  This tiny skull
just doesn't know.  Therefore, maybe it's as Pirsig
compared mu with quality.  I plead the fifth and mu
and say don't look at me:  no-self.

     [Chin]
> The universe, the
> world, is moral, and we 
> are born moral, and lose this as we lose ourselves,
> but the intellect 
> as it is spoken of often here, as the scientific
> intellect as the 
> definition of intellect seem to mean the bulldozer
> going through all 
> available data, and this is where morals come from?
> -- or the highest 
> morals? 

     I see what you mean, but even if intellect is
highest moral, what is intellect to intellectualize? 
On this highest level, I'm sticking with code of art. 
Nothing is moral.  Thus, the first static latch,
maybe, and this might be synonymous with the
'suchness' in Zen.  This first static latch that I can
intellectualize:  Nothing is moral:  code of art: 
dynamic morality; these all to me are saying be quiet
SA and morals latch onto this quietness.  The 'is'
means 'latch'.  Nothing latch moral:  Moral latch
nothing.  Hmmm, maybe.

 
> Chin) I would see it as they just choose, to be or
> not to be would 
> still be a choice.  

    Are they just here?  They are here and then
choose.  Can they really choose to be here?  This
implies a beginning.  This is getting into the
pre-intellectual primary reality where the intellect
might not be able to latch static patterns for
pre-intellect precedes intellect, right?
 
    [Chin]
> It doesn’t have as much to do with quietness,
> but whether or not 
> a child is born with more intelligence than the
> caveman. If a child 
> were born void of all senses, would this child have
> a thought. Is 
> there an inherent evolvement in man? Is it possible
> the child could be 
> the teacher of the parent? 

     My wife and I have a 3 month old boy.  I don't
remember this age and never have lived this long with
such a young one.  Each person, also, has his/her own
path in life.  So, each is different, and this stage
in his life is very different for the both of us.  He
let's us know when he pooped, he is hungry, he wants
to be moved, wants to be held, and etc...  He is
letting us know about his life, and yet, since this
early on so many babies might be the same, I've never
been the parent and had to help a baby live.  He's
helping me understand what to do.  


     [Chin]
>This is getting away from the subject, but in
> self-observation, 
> it is also good to observe how you relate to others,
> how you are not 
> real, or how your character has changed to fit your
> environment 
> influenced by non-real politics, culture, religion,
> intellect, &c.

     true.

     [Chin] 
...By putting intellect at the highest level, and
allowing the ego driven intellectual an opportunity to
define intellect for themselves, it may offer an
opportunity for the more SOM based intellectuals who
see science as their religion, or spirituality, to
look at the world in a different view.

-------
     Interesting.  Your most likely correct.  But
where does intellect mean ego-driven?  To rid ego,
with intellect, is to recognize Nothing.  How to
recognize nothing?  Well, you know what I do... 'I' be
quiet.  When I am quiet, what might you experience of
me?  What is this quiet-living?  This quiet-living is
thus deeper implications. 

     [Chin]
Though I do appreciate science and what it has done
for us, I think 
Chaos which Marsha was asking about is simply a
statement that we 
cannot know beyond our limited intellect, either in
the macro or micro 
worlds. What we know is no more than a collection of
what we already 
know, and the continuing mythos simply adds to what we
know. 

---------
     Probably true.  I don't doubt what your saying. 
This dilemma -  what is order:  what is chaos, hmmm,
such is this dilemma.


    [Chin]
Nothingness, IMHO, says the same. Where 8.6 billion
years, a day of 
Brahma, came from in Ancient Hinduism, I don’t know,
but it is odd, 
possibly just coincidence that they may have hit it
this close to what 
science has found as the beginning of our universe in
the Big Bang 
Theory. I also noticed in some Christianity the
thought that a day for 
God can be millions of days in our calendar days.
Another example of 
how East and West seem to have met in spirituality is
that the Father, 
Son and Holy Ghost are now considered the same deity
in Christianity 
and some of the Buddhist traditions have developed
their own Father, 
Son and Holy Ghost (of course not called that). 

----------
     As Pirsig stated, intellect is to help society. 
This knowledge, is it knowledge just to gain, or
knowledge to help society?

     [Chin]
Either way, this is speculation, and much of what I
have offered here 
is speculation, but at least I know it is speculation.
At least I know 
I do not know.

------------
     Exactly.  the I don't know where the I is quiet,
and the first static latch may shine through the
intellect and we may all see morality latching upon
nothing.  This is the intellect that is a static
pattern shining dynamic quality as nothing shines
everywhere.  This is quality revealing itself upon the
'highest' moral level - sq and dq non-dualed, and sq
and dq living the same place, at the same time;
quality through and through.  But, I don't know.

     [Chin]
Quality fits, Dharma, Arete, it’s just “A way of
life.” Quality 
is easiest to understand in a modern Western view.

-------------
     Unless, I translate to a Zen monk that is sitting
quietly how, "Nothing is moral."

     He might say, "Shut-up and live it!"

     I'd say, "I didn't say anything, nothing, nada." 
And all is thus as is.

     But what do I know, nothing, nada.


night,
SA     

P.S.  Sorry for the lengthy responses.


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Have a burning question?  
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.